The second amendment was created for a reason. To protect the American people; specifically against rouge governments. Obama wants to inflict fire arms confiscation to lower the crime rate in the country. He is acting as though criminals follow laws. If the people of America want guns, the people of America will get guns; even on the black market if needs be. I live in a hunting, redneck, I-like-big-explosion-and-fire type of community and if the government comes to our doorstep for the purpose of confiscating our guns the two things we will be ready to greet them with is a copy of the second amendment and a 12 gauge shot gun and if the first one doesn't get them off our property then the other will.

It is true that the second amendment states that Americans have the right to bear arms, but the creators of the constitution didn't know that one day the we would have tanks. As weaponry evolves we need to put more limits on it, we don't want people walking around with mini guns. Also I would like to point out that most shootings that occur today are done with legal guns. The point of the second amendments was to protect citizens from the government, not to give citizens a way to walk out and shoot twenty people. Also I would like to point out again that the creators of the constitution seem not to have thought that guns would evolve from muskets. In the 18th a man might be able to shot one person in public, not today though.

Another reason guns should be banned is because firearms are in the top three things that cause deaths among young people. Almost every American owns a firearm, which makes them extremely easy to obtain. A kid can easily obtain a gun and walk out into public. In Canada the National Public Services Research Institution found that the yearly cost related to gunshot wounds were about $6.6 billion. Also with gun control, gangs could get military grade weapons, this would cause the police to lose the advantage they have over gangs in firepower, this would cause a rise in deaths in the gang war, because the gangs can shoot at police officers with military grade weaponry. Removing gun bans is a very bad idea.

Criminals and gangsters don't follow laws. If they want guns they will get them at any means necessary. If there was a gun control law passed, it would increase the death rate for the law abiding citizens because of lack of self defense options. It would in crease the number of break-in's because an intruder will know that he wont be shot because of current gun laws and they will have a gun they got on the black market. Speaking of which, with gun restriction laws in place, it would increase the black market so that people can get the guns back that they were forced to give up. And look at Switzerland. Every family is required by law to own a fire arm and they have the lowest crime rate in the world.

This is not true. Most people don't carry guns around in public. There are police for a reason. Also most burglars don't bring a gun with them during a break in, they normally enter when there is no one in the house. A tazer is fine for self defense, and would allow home owners to defend themselves without bloodshed. Also a gun ban would help police in hunting criminals, the police can simpily look for people carrying guns. Even though most Americans own a gun, America has one of the highest crime rates in the world, if not the highest. Also because almost every American family has a gun, accidental shooting can occur, with curious kids. Also there always has to be that one person who legally obtains the gun to sell on the black market.

There is proof gun bans do work. In 2012 the number of gun related violent crimes per 100,000 was 10.2 or one per every 10,000 people, which based on the current population means that almost 32,000 Americans were gun crime victims in the U.S.A, whereas in the UK that figure was 0.25 per 100,000 people, which works out to 147 people. There is absolutely no reason for guns to be banned.

im just gonna say a couple more things. #1. i live in a redneck community were hunting is the most important thing to people here other than their family which brings me to my second point. if someone came into my house with the intent to take/damage my property or family, i have the legal right to do anything necessary to defend my self, family and property. and if someone dose that have that intent i will give them whats coming to them. a .44 is gonna be way more effective than a tazer. and not every American family owns guns because if that were the case this wouldnt even be an issue. i have a cousin who dropped his .22 and accidentally shot him self in the sholder; a month later he went and shot 6 point buck.

My opponent does not seen to understand that a tazer will be as effective. It would leave the person in a state of great pain and will make them feel like they can't move. This gives enough time to call the cops or to disarm the criminal. For every one hundred Americans there are eighty six guns for them. Thats a lot of people walking around with guns, that increases the like hood an accident from happening. Also my opponent agreed with the point about accidents by stating his cousin's story. His cousin is lucky that the round didn't hit him in the head. Also his cousin would have to pay for the gunshot wound. My opponent also didn't counter any of my points of the early rounds.

your right about the millitary protecting the cytizens and their own people. one of the things they are suposed to protect them from is roug governments. i think its called a coup de'tat or something to that efect. there is a chanse that if someone who hate the constition is put into office they will try to change the constitution. for example, in the sate of the union address, obama said that if he can take steps without ledgislation, he will do it. he wants to change the constitution to "benifet amarican familys" or so he says, but we have all see how well thats playing out now. its not about protecting the people its about protecting our rights as amaricans. i have the right to bear arms. plain and simple.

your right about the millitary protecting the cytizens and their own people. one of the things they are suposed to protect them from is roug governments. i think its called a coup de'tat or something to that efect. there is a chanse that if someone who hate the constition is put into office they will try to change the constitution. for example, in the sate of the union address, obama said that if he can take steps without ledgislation, he will do it. he wants to change the constitution to "benifet amarican familys" or so he says, but we have all see how well thats playing out now. its not about protecting the people its about protecting our rights as amaricans. i have the right to bear arms. plain and simple.

The power of this government lies with the people, they vote men into office, men who hate the constitution will not stay in office in long. The American people don't need guns to vote. Also the military are made up of men who would not shoot at there own people, they would fight for the people. The military are men who were recruited from civilians, not born into service to serve a dictator. Also the police don't need guns. They can restrain people fine with tazer. Did you here about the acidental police shooting? The police accidentally shot a man when he was trying to taze him. This shows two things, one that the police can accidentally kill people with there guns and two, that they use tazers more. Look if you want to debate this more then send me a challenge.

so now your saying that not even cops should have guns? your right about how the government is set up so that evil men cant stay in for long. thats what the second amendment was made for. so that when the government gets over run by those evil men, the people of whom the government would be attempting to dictate could defend themselves against the unjust manor in which they are being treated.

whats to keep cops from going insane on people using their guns? but from what i see based on your view point is genraly the same as thomas hobbs who said that men are natraly evil and need a type of "laviathin" govornment to control everyone for the good if the people. the flaw with that is that the govornment would be made up if those same natraly evil men he says everyone is. so if there were to be a sort of uprizing govornment, there would need to be guns in the hands of the good, law-abiding people to defend thenselves against the unjustification that eventualy will happen. if guns were only in the hands of the police and govornment, whats from stoping them from forming a dictatorship of sorts. nothing because they will have all the fire arms and we will be left defensless and have no choice but to accept the new rule.

There are positives and negatives to everything, including guns. I won't deny that guns have saved the lives of many people in the past, but they have taken many more lives than they have saved. What about the time that insane man walked into a cinema and murdered so many innocent people? Or the young child who accidently shot his sister with his gun? And if you have a gun in your house, what are the chances of your 17-year-old, severely depressed daughter finding it and blowing her brains out? Guns should not be given to anybody except for police.